English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

i base this question on the story in the bible of the woman with 3 coins in the temple

(a rich man give 30 coins and the poor woman gives only 3 but god values the 3 over the 30)

yeah i know the story is about charity but why doesn't this translate into life as a whole?

2007-10-02 16:45:15 · 11 answers · asked by specal k 5 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

11 answers

Think about it! The poor woman gave all that she had, the rich man gave with a greedy heart. The rich men of today get the tax breaks when they are the ones who can more afford to pay and the working poor get the hardships. They often also have no health care with that low paying job.

2007-10-02 16:55:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Yes it does translate into life as a whole. For it is plain to see that the guy who gave 30 coins...just did it because what....he had too. But the poor woman really had no coins to spare, but because she had actually experienced the results of being without money or substance, she understood in her heart that her 3 coins would be greatly appreciated by someone. So.....is the moral of the story. He who has the least sometimes gives the most. It happens all the time in this world right now, today. LOOK AROUND.

2007-10-02 16:51:25 · answer #2 · answered by kickinupfunf 6 · 2 0

That is not true. You need to read the word again. You are presenting false teachings. The widows offering. Luke chapter 21:1-4. What that got to do with support of higher taxes? God has no intent of a Christian living in poverty! 2 Corinthians 9:6-14. God gives seed to the sower.

2007-10-02 17:05:55 · answer #3 · answered by God is love. 6 · 0 0

The 'Right' does not support higher taxes period. They feel the tax rate is already too high, that further increases will suppress economic growth and ultimately result in less revenue to the government.

The parable of the widow's mites, simply says that God recognizes the degree of sacrifice someone has made.

If a soldier had forced the widow to hand over her money to some Roman bureaucrat, do you REALLY think Christ would have said "God wants to see more that."?

2007-10-02 17:19:41 · answer #4 · answered by Phoenix Quill 7 · 0 0

I need to answer where this logic comes from:
"Christian right?" where does the political agenda be assumed in Christianity.

As far as the other question -
her 3 was more % wise than the rich man's 30. It may have been all she had. She gave everything she had of value to God, while rich people may gloat over how much more they gave, but it isn't close % wise.
There are Christian business people who reverse tithe. They give 90% and live off the tenth. Try that.

2007-10-02 16:52:48 · answer #5 · answered by n9wff 6 · 0 1

It does. The poor woman gave everything she had. The rich man gave only a small amount. Who is the more blessed in this situation? The woman of course.
As for taxes, Jesus said when asked the same question: Pay caeser what is due to ceaser and pay God what is due to God. He didn't tell anyone not to pay taxes.

2007-10-02 16:57:52 · answer #6 · answered by rosie 2 · 0 0

Tax-ation is rarely happy. We pay tax upon tax, to the factor of vexation, through taxing fLAWs being all conceitedness & vexation. There are no undesirable in any respect interior the area of grace, that's $ufficient whilst tax rules are not extra. Jesus grew to become into not perfected in Luke 13:32, the place he stated he could be perfected the 0.33 day. nicely, it fairly is now the allegoric 0.33 day, previous 2 millennial final days, and we are all nevertheless being taxed (vexed) along with his fLAWs. So enable's flow on, from the incorrect Jesus to Christ is the top of such vexing fLAWs. the point in Psalms 147 is to mark and objective at suitable guy: the top (not start up) of that guy is peace. Jesus = branch, not peace. Christ = peace, not dividead

2016-11-07 02:59:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

well it applies to acts of charity as a whole. this is to say nothing of taxation or the role of the state. paying taxes is a civic obligation - charity by its very nature is not obligatory.

of course, i do think that people who make more should pay more - and people with little to give should have little expected of them. but the temple story has nothing to do with it.

edit-also, since the state rarely knows how to spend our money effectively, i rarely support higher taxes. as it is, the size of the state needs to be reduced.

and, (i promise not to make this too long) it is a fact that Americans, despite what they pay in taxes and what our govt spends in international aid as it is, are by far the most charitable people financially speaking.

2007-10-02 16:51:24 · answer #8 · answered by kujigafy 5 · 0 0

I will only support higher taxes if we get Universal Health care out of it, if not forget it

Catholic Christian

2007-10-02 16:49:21 · answer #9 · answered by tebone0315 7 · 3 0

I doubt it; all that extra tax would only be spent on liberal do-gooder projects to help the weak and disenfranchised! How can that be good for a country?!?

;-]

2007-10-05 21:51:49 · answer #10 · answered by Bart S 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers